“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[peacegirl]

We Asked a NASA Technologist: How Do We Communicate With Spacecraft?

How do we communicate with spacecraft? We communicate with spacecraft in a lot of different ways. We have a network of antennas all over the world across all seven continents, along with satellites in space that help transmit these radio waves. Astronauts, mission controllers, and scientists

scitechdaily.com

 

[peacegirl]

'Real ti9me; is a matter of definition.

In systems real time mans reacting to inputs as ti happens.

When you type a character it appears on your screen, it is a real time system. But there is a deelay between pressing the key and when the charter appears on the screen.

There is also a delay between when the character appears and the light reaches your eyes, and a delay between the light on your retina and when you perceive it.

The combination of computer hardware and the Windows operating system is a real time system

A state can not change instantaneously. There is physics behind it. The faster you try to effect a change the more energy is required, As the time interval goes to zero energy goes to u infinity, an impossible condition.

The faster you accelerate a car the more gas is used, as time goes to zero yo8 need an infinite amount of gasoline.

It apples to electron circuits. The faster you try and cnange the state of a digital circuit the more energy is required.

So, even though we can call our biological system real time, we can never see anything without a delay.

 

[peacegirl]

'Real ti9me; is a matter of definition.

In systems real time mans reacting to inputs as ti happens.

When you type a character it appears on your screen, it is a real time system. But there is a deelay between pressing the key and when the charter appears on the screen.

There is also a delay between when the character appears and the light reaches your eyes, and a delay between the light on your retina and when you perceive it.

There might be a delay when the character appears but once it does, you see it in real time, not a delay. You're just parroting what science has ingrained in you.

The combination of computer hardware and the Windows operating system is a real time system

A state can not change instantaneously.

Never said it could.

There is physics behind it. The faster you try to effect a change the more energy is required, As the time interval goes to zero energy goes to u infinity, an impossible condition.

You are trying to relate the physics of motion to the mechanics of the eye and brain. Obviously light travels, but, once again, no one is discounting how light works. It's how the eyes work that is being contested.

The faster you accelerate a car the more gas is used, as time goes to zero yo8 need an infinite amount of gasoline.

It apples to electron circuits. The faster you try and cnange the state of a digital circuit the more energy is required.

No one is debating this.

So, even though we can call our biological system real time, we can never see anything without a delay.

If it meets the requirements of brightness and size (I know you think this definition is murky; what can I say?), we can see the image on a screen instantly. Science says an image appears instantaneous because of how fast light travels, but that's what is being challenged.

 

[steve_bank]

I worked on a RADAR system in the 80s.

RADAR works on the fact that light has a finite velocity.

To understated how the tine delay is measured you have to understand the they the second is derived.

Pulse a laser pointed at a far away reflector and start a stop watch. When the light renters from being reflected the stop watch is stopped. Knowing the speed of light distance can be found,

No different than sonar in a submarine. Sound instead of light. There is always a delay in sound sound. lap your hands in a large room and you will will hear the reflectionn off walls after you clap. Light is no different.

The time it takes for light to traverse a distance in air or sound in water or air is called a propagation delay.

 

[steve_bank]

You are not comprehending what I said.

There can be no instantaneous when it comes to light.

Colloquially we may say instantaneously when the delay is so short that it is inconsequential. When I saw the accident I instantaneously called 911.

When you hit a key on the keyboard the character appears instantaneous on the screen, or more correctly virtually instantaneously.

Yoou say the physics of light is not being quesionted by you, but you use the word instantaneus.

If yiu woud lay it out step by step for me
1. Light reflct6s off a rock.
2. Lightbr5avels from the rock to the eye with a delay.
3...?

What hapens next?

 

[pood]

If you turn on a light five feet away from you, it takes the light five nanoseconds to reach the eye. Thus, we see the light source as it was five nanoseconds in the past.

Five nanoseconds, for coarse-grained human senses, is far too short a time interval to measure, so it seems instantaneous. But it is not, and can be measured with devices.

All of this has been explained many, many times to peacegirl.

 

[peacegirl]

If you turn on a light five feet away from you, it takes the light five nanoseconds to reach the eye. Thus, we see the light source as it was five nanoseconds in the past.

Five nanoseconds, for coarse-grained human senses, is far too short a time interval to measure, so it seems instantaneous. But it is not, and can be measured with devices.

All of this has been explained many, many times to peacegirl.

It's the same analogy as if the Sun were turned on at 12 noon. We would see the source of the light instantly because the light would already be at the eye. Time and distance are not factors, only brightness and size. This doesn't mean that light isn't traveling, but it's not a requirement for sight. I know this is hard for you to believe, but what is true is true. Devices measure the speed of light but not how the eyes work. I looked at everything on the list and nothing confirms delayed VISION.

 

[peacegirl]

You are not comprehending what I said.

There can be no instantaneous when it comes to light.

Colloquially we may say instantaneously when the delay is so short that it is inconsequential. When I saw the accident I instantaneously called 911.

When you hit a key on the keyboard the character appears instantaneous on the screen, or more correctly virtually instantaneously.

Yoou say the physics of light is not being quesionted by you, but you use the word instantaneus.

If yiu woud lay it out step by step for me
1. Light reflct6s off a rock.
2. Lightbr5avels from the rock to the eye with a delay.
3...?

What hapens next?

You keep talking about light traveling. Light does travel but it does not travel with the light wave or image of the rock. Light is a condition of sight, not a cause. We see the rock because it is there to be seen. Light is a necessary conduit for sight but, again, it does not bounce off of the object carrying the information (or light wave) with it through space/time.

 

[DBT]

Metaphysics is abstractions not necessarily tied to physical reality. Yourarguments are metaphysical.

They are not metaphysical. Science is shot through with metaphysics, and metaphysics can inform science. The claim that the eyes are not sense organs and we see instantly is just empty, easily disproved in a thousand different ways.

To be honest I do not see much difference between you and Peacegirl....

In a broad meaning of metaphors perhaps. I never met an engineer or somebody with science credentials who cited philosophy or metaphysics.

You could also say science is linguists or psychology.

Science is a skill that is learned by studying theory, experience, and what has been done before.

There is no philosophy or metaphysicss texts that say how to do science, or engineering for that matter.

Science is a skill as is carpentry, albeit more complicated.

Science is not philosophy. Science is science .

Science is a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy, and is rife with metaphysical assumptions. What peacegirl is doing is not metaphysics or science or any kind of philosophy. It’s making shit up. I should also note that there are a number of scientists who are and were deeply beholden to philosophy. Albert Einstein was one, and he acknowledged to debt to philosophy, including David Hume, who, by the way, demolished the argument to design centuries before Darwin came along.

Stop using me by implying that I'm not worth paying attention to. You are not a scientist of any caliber, nor are you a true philosopher so don't tell people I'm making shit up, okay? You didn't even read the book. Military force, my foot. The demonstration Lessans gave regarding how the brain focuses the eyes from the stimulation of the other senses, was never explored by you because you convinced yourself he was wrong from day one. You had no questions and were not the least bit interested or curious about anything he wrote. It's just plain old snobbery. You are not at the top echelon of anything Pood, so leave me out of your conversations.

No, I read the stuff about light and sight, and it’s completely wrong, and we showed you why it was wrong. Note that you were also shown this by two astrophysicist and one biologist.

Of all subject matters, this one is open to a lot of unknowns. They may know a lot about stars and galaxies, but that does not mean they know everything just because they have a credential next to their name. The same thing goes for The Lone Ranger who I'm sure meant well. Unfortuntely, the knowledge regarding the eyes could only have come from someone outside of the fields of biology or astrophysics. What is it that you don't understand?

No, peacegirl, it doesn’t work that way. Bilby already explained this. In science, NOTHING is handed down from an authority figure to be memorized and believed. It is CHECKED. The Lone Ranger CHECKED how eyes work.

But don’t you see that as far as light and the eyes go, it did not show how light and sight work. It showed parts of the eye and what they do.

He DISSECTED EYES,

Dissection cannot show anything in regard to real or delayed time seeing. This is a diversion tactic.

Physicists CHECK how light works. Then students taught these things CHECK THEM in their labs. NOBODY in science believes stuff just because someone else told them it’s true.

Labs? Show me where they can prove in a lab that we see in delayed time. I never said nobody believes stuff just because someone else told them it’s true. But mistakes can be made and then everything that follows is false.

All of the parts of the eye have evolved to detect light, wavelength, shape, movement, etc, and convert that information into electrical impulses, which are transmitted to the brain in order to generate a virtual conscious representation of the external world, which enables us to navigate and respond to its objects and events.


And I still don't know how instant seeing is supposed to work.

How is the supposed to acquire the information before its even radiated or transmitted from the source?

The light IS at the eye. You're just thinking in terms of afferent vision, not efferent. You'll never get it if you don't let go of the thinking that light has to travel from the source to get to the eye. It won't make sense otherwise. Did you read his demonstration as to what he believed is going on with the eyes and why he said what he did?

It's wrong.

That light has a speed is well established. That objects radiate or reflect light is beyond all reasonable doubt, and as eyes have evolved to detect light in the external world, light cannot just be "at the eye."

If light was somehow just "at the eye," it has no information about external world.

How could it possibly work?

 

[peacegirl]

Metaphysics is abstractions not necessarily tied to physical reality. Yourarguments are metaphysical.

They are not metaphysical. Science is shot through with metaphysics, and metaphysics can inform science. The claim that the eyes are not sense organs and we see instantly is just empty, easily disproved in a thousand different ways.

To be honest I do not see much difference between you and Peacegirl....

In a broad meaning of metaphors perhaps. I never met an engineer or somebody with science credentials who cited philosophy or metaphysics.

You could also say science is linguists or psychology.

Science is a skill that is learned by studying theory, experience, and what has been done before.

There is no philosophy or metaphysicss texts that say how to do science, or engineering for that matter.

Science is a skill as is carpentry, albeit more complicated.

Science is not philosophy. Science is science .

Science is a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy, and is rife with metaphysical assumptions. What peacegirl is doing is not metaphysics or science or any kind of philosophy. It’s making shit up. I should also note that there are a number of scientists who are and were deeply beholden to philosophy. Albert Einstein was one, and he acknowledged to debt to philosophy, including David Hume, who, by the way, demolished the argument to design centuries before Darwin came along.

Stop using me by implying that I'm not worth paying attention to. You are not a scientist of any caliber, nor are you a true philosopher so don't tell people I'm making shit up, okay? You didn't even read the book. Military force, my foot. The demonstration Lessans gave regarding how the brain focuses the eyes from the stimulation of the other senses, was never explored by you because you convinced yourself he was wrong from day one. You had no questions and were not the least bit interested or curious about anything he wrote. It's just plain old snobbery. You are not at the top echelon of anything Pood, so leave me out of your conversations.

No, I read the stuff about light and sight, and it’s completely wrong, and we showed you why it was wrong. Note that you were also shown this by two astrophysicist and one biologist.

Of all subject matters, this one is open to a lot of unknowns. They may know a lot about stars and galaxies, but that does not mean they know everything just because they have a credential next to their name. The same thing goes for The Lone Ranger who I'm sure meant well. Unfortuntely, the knowledge regarding the eyes could only have come from someone outside of the fields of biology or astrophysics. What is it that you don't understand?

No, peacegirl, it doesn’t work that way. Bilby already explained this. In science, NOTHING is handed down from an authority figure to be memorized and believed. It is CHECKED. The Lone Ranger CHECKED how eyes work.

But don’t you see that as far as light and the eyes go, it did not show how light and sight work. It showed parts of the eye and what they do.

He DISSECTED EYES,

Dissection cannot show anything in regard to real or delayed time seeing. This is a diversion tactic.

Physicists CHECK how light works. Then students taught these things CHECK THEM in their labs. NOBODY in science believes stuff just because someone else told them it’s true.

Labs? Show me where they can prove in a lab that we see in delayed time. I never said nobody believes stuff just because someone else told them it’s true. But mistakes can be made and then everything that follows is false.

All of the parts of the eye have evolved to detect light, wavelength, shape, movement, etc, and convert that information into electrical impulses, which are transmitted to the brain in order to generate a virtual conscious representation of the external world, which enables us to navigate and respond to its objects and events.


And I still don't know how instant seeing is supposed to work.

How is the supposed to acquire the information before its even radiated or transmitted from the source?

The light IS at the eye. You're just thinking in terms of afferent vision, not efferent. You'll never get it if you don't let go of the thinking that light has to travel from the source to get to the eye. It won't make sense otherwise. Did you read his demonstration as to what he believed is going on with the eyes and why he said what he did?

It's wrong.

That light has a speed is well established.

No one is denying the speed of light is well established. That's not even under debate.

That objects radiate or reflect light is beyond all reasonable doubt, and as eyes have evolved to detect light in the external world, light cannot just be "at the eye."

I understand why you think it's wrong because light can't be at the eye before it's at the eye, but you are not understanding why light can be at the eye using the light waves that are there instantly when one is gazing at the object. It's all about the function of the eyes, not light. Did you read his demonstration as to why he believed his finding was correct?

If light was somehow just "at the eye," it has no information about external world.

Yes it does. In fact, it's the real thing, not an image of the thing. That is the most accurate you can get.

How could it possibly work?

I'm trying to explain why we see reality, not a virtual reality. I know it's hard to wrap your mind around but please don't give up. The author knew what he was talking about. He was a very deep thinker and would never have made that claim if he wasn't sure.

 

[pood]

Good grief.

 

[pood]

The real thing is at our eye. So the sun is at our eye when we look at it. Why don’t we burn up? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[pood]

It's wrong.

That light has a speed is well established. That objects radiate or reflect light is beyond all reasonable doubt, and as eyes have evolved to detect light in the external world, light cannot just be "at the eye."

If light was somehow just "at the eye," it has no information about external world.

How could it possibly work?

You’re right, of course, that faster-than-light signaling would violate determinism, and we would experiences events happening before their causes. We tried to explain relativity to her. She rejected it.

 

[peacegirl]

The real thing is at our eye. So the sun is at our eye when we look at it. Why don’t we burn up? Inquiring minds want to know.

Because we receive the light from the Sun after 81/2 minutes, but we see the Sun in real time.

 

[peacegirl]

It's wrong.

That light has a speed is well established. That objects radiate or reflect light is beyond all reasonable doubt, and as eyes have evolved to detect light in the external world, light cannot just be "at the eye."

If light was somehow just "at the eye," it has no information about external world.

How could it possibly work?

You’re right, of course, that faster-than-light signaling would violate determinism, and we would experiences events happening before their causes. We tried to explain relativity to her. She rejected it.

This has nothing to do with faster than light speed and nothing to do with determinism, since nothing from the past causes the present.

 

[pood]

This has nothing to do with faster than light speed and nothing to do with determinism, since nothing from the past causes the present.

I see. Now you are back to this line, that nothing from the past causes the present. Are you listening, DBT? And yet, I pointed out initially that this was the writer’s position, but you quickly rejected what I wrote when you learned that DBT was supporting determinism. Of course, DBT thinks determinism means that the past causes the present, including all human actions.

And yes, it does have to do with faster-than-light signaling and determinism. If the sun is “at the eye” instantly, whatever that is even supposed to even mean, then that is faster-than-light signaling and it would violate causality. We would experience events before their causes. All of this has been previously explained to you.

 

[pood]

The real thing is at our eye. So the sun is at our eye when we look at it. Why don’t we burn up? Inquiring minds want to know.

Because we receive the light from the Sun after 81/2 minutes, but we see the Sun in real time.

How?

 

[pood]

Note; “Because of the way the eyes work” is NOT an answer.

 

[peacegirl]

This has nothing to do with faster than light speed and nothing to do with determinism, since nothing from the past causes the present.

I see. Now you are back to this line, that nothing from the past causes the present. Are you listening, DBT? And yet, I pointed out initially that this was the writer’s position, but you quickly rejected what I wrote when you learned that DBT was supporting determinism.

I listened to DBT. He is correct regarding determinism. Just because there is a slight nuance regarding “cause” does not mean we aren’t in agreement regarding “could not have done otherwise.”

Of course, DBT thinks determinism means that the past causes the present, including all human actions.

That’s the conventional definition. What he means when he says antecedent events determine our actions is just another way of saying that past events that we are remembering and using to make a decision are determined, which is true.

And yes, it does have to do with faster-than-light signaling and determinism. If the sun is “at the eye” instantly, whatever that is even supposed to even mean, then that is faster-than-light signaling and it would violate causality. We would experience events before their causes. All of this has been previously explained to you.

And I have explained to you that this has nothing to do with faster than light speed. It has nothing to do with light speed at all. All of this has been previously explained to you.

 

[pood]

And I have explained to you that this has nothing to do with faster than light speed. It has nothing to do with light speed at all. All of this has been previously explained to you.

You have explained nothing. You have asserted a bunch of stuff that is not only at variance with physics, but at variance with logic itself.

The key is not faster than light speed, but rather faster than light signaling. If the sun is “at the eye” instantly, whatever that is even supposed to mean, you have received information faster than light. Relativity theory forbids this, and in such a world we would see events before their causes.

Actually, in such a world, we’d see nothing at all, because the surface temperature of the earth would be about that of the sun and no living things would exist. We explained that to you, too.